Thursday letters: Whither Syria?

Copyright 2013: Houston Chronicle

Updated 6:23 pm, Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Image 1of/1

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 1

Thursday letters: Whither Syria?

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

Stand pat

Regarding "Kerry: Syria wil be held accountable in attacks" (Page A4, Tuesday), as a supporter of peace, I don't believe that firing missiles at Syrian military bases is a positive solution to the alleged chemical weapons that have been reported.

Such missile strikes could cause retaliation and might not be effective to end chemical weapon attacks.

Syria's allies pose a problem, especially considering that more than one of them holds great military power if a war were to begin. Also if the U.S. were to launch a pre-emptive strike, we could lose the support of the U.N. in a war.

After hearing about the developments in Syria and the possibility of there being chemical attacks, the United States should first prove that the attacks are chemical.

Once we determine that the attacks are indeed chemical, we should give Syria a warning and ask the leaders to destroy the chemicals. If they do not heed these warnings, we should go into Syria with force. We should go to all means to save ourselves from the possibility of a chemical attack from Syria.

In response to the recent accusations against Syria regarding the use of chemical weapons, if U.N. inspectors determine that this accusation is valid, our involvement in the Syrian civil war is the proper course of action.

Currently, the civil war is part of a massive Arab Spring taking place in the Middle East, and defending the rebels against their oppressive government not only depicts what actions are tolerated by the United States, but our approval of the rebels' cause: the right to a democratic government. In fact, we may find that we were in a similar scenario just a few hundred years ago.

As stated recently, the Syrian government has been confirmed to possess chemical weapons; additionally, considering the scale of the civil unrest within the country, the government has been known to act rashly. This, added to the fact that the rebels are at a vast disadvantage in obtaining their dream of a democracy, we reflect ourselves through actions regarding their defense, encouraging the growth of the democratic philosophy.

Jack Ebmeier, Sugar Land

Don't intervene

America is considered the policeman of the world. We believe that getting in other countries' business is our job, yet some of these countries strongly dislike the United States.

Recently, the Syrian government has supposedly been using chemical weaponry in their own civil war, and the U.S. believes that it should respond.

I believe we shouldn't intervene in Syria because America has very little affiliation with this country. If we intervene, we may cause a bigger issue than the existing one.

America is dealing with its debt and the on-and-off recessions taking place. Why would someone want to solve a problem regarding another country when we can't even solve one relating to ourselves? This country has a lot more domestic issues and does not have the time to get involved in Syria.

Look at the Middle East countries that we have helped. None appears to have had dramatic positive results, yet America spent so much money into those projects putting us in debt. America has no business responding to the Syrian chemical attacks.

Given the fact that chemical weapons were indeed used in Syria, I believe foreign intervention, whether it be U.S., NATO or the United Nations, is an absolute necessity.

If it turns out that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons, regardless of Russian vetoes through the Security Council, we have a moral responsibility to act on these findings.

If we were to act against the Syrian regime, I believe that the most important thing for us to do is keep American boots off the ground. This will keep us from repeating past mistakes similar to Iraq as well as keep American soldiers out of the line of fire.

I also think that it is well within our safe capability to use our aeronautical superiority as our primary method of dealing with Syria. Whether it be ballistic missile strikes, drone strikes or manned aerial assault, I believe that this is our best option.